And so we have recoupling, with the ISM printing below 50 (i.e. contraction) at 49.7 for the first time since July 2009. Expectations of a 52.5 print were obviously blown away, as the final number came well below the lowest Wall Street forecast of 50.5.

Poor Nate Silver. So very perceptive when he brings up ISM Manufacturing Indices, but oh so very wrong when he calculates Romney’s stagnant chances.

Plus, your strange exhumation of Silver’s "tossup" call, in order to discredit the same source you’d so recently credited as being crucial. But Silver’s January 2010 columns explicitly described the process of Scott Brown picking up steam down the stretch as reflected by the available polling... which is exactly what happened. Rasmussen, a pollster which has been shown to have a consistent house tilt towards Republican candidates, wrapped up their work with Brown losing, yet the biased liberal Nate Silver didn’t.

Four days before his “tossup” column, Silver estimated that Martha Coakley would win by more than 8%. By the final day, Silver’s formula had reduced Coakley’s estimated lead to 4 points. And then, later on the same day, he applied a second downshift to knock her to 0%.

From more than 8 to 4 to 0 in 96 hours. Whoo-ee, Silver sure blew that call.